Talk:K't'inga class
K't'inga class FA discussion Self nomination. Right amount of (relevant) pictures alongside a comprehensive and well balanced write up. --Alan del Beccio 22:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC) :Not yet decided, but a couple of questions: the article claims that "By 2375, the days of the battle cruiser were winding down, as these warships were described as being too slow and unwieldy compared to many of their more formidable counterparts." It cites DS9: , yet the dialogue only says "The battle cruisers are too slow and unwieldy for this kind of mission." Meaning that for other missions they were just fine. So how does this support the broad statement? And why is Star Trek: Starship Spotter (not a permitted Memory Alpha resource) used for dimensions when the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual (a permitted resource) has the information? If clearly erroneous, I would think that the information would be entirely relegated to background since the Spotter can't really be a cite. Also, there is at least one consistent typo ("its'" instead of "its" in at least two instances) that needs correction, and it should be gone over again for any other such things. Aholland 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC) :: Seems like a simple solutions to me. Seeing you already have all the answers then go ahead and brunt some of the weight yourself and have at it...this is a collaborative effort, afterall. --Alan del Beccio 06:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC) :::I didn't want to make broad changes to a nominated article without at least finding out if my suggestions (other than the typos, of course) were way off base. My assumption was that it was nominated because it was thought to be accurate "as is". I'll be happy to give it an edit for the above and anything else I may see in the process - but it won't be this morning! :) Aholland 12:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC) :I just made a variety of changes to the article. In addition to typos and the stuff from above, there was other information that was inaccurate or not organized in what I felt was the best way. But given that the article is in great flux, should we wait and see what else (if anything) happens on it before putting it up for nomination? I still haven't voted, but am leaning toward no because of the state it was in and the numerous changes that have been introduced (albeit by me) since its nomination. But take a look and see what I'm talking about. Aholland 17:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC) *'Support'. Looks great. Very detailed. Jaz talk 20:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC) *'Support'. Big time. Love this ship. Great article. Ooh-rah. --From Andoria with Love 06:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose'. The article is in too much flux. I made a large change to it for a variety of reasons on June 3. Since then no fewer than a dozen changes have been made. Some were minor or formatting, but others added or deleted actual article information (e.g., whether or not they could be called "sleeper ships"). I agree that this is shaping up to be a great article, but it needs to settle down a bit before being featured, I believe. Aholland 11:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC) ** The only part of the article that is truely in "flux" is the sidebar info. For all I care the damned sidebar can be removed completely for the sake of this seemingly petty reason to oppose a nomination that otherwise completely ignores the body of the pages content, aside from some very minor grammarical errors, is in rather solid shape. Afterall, you can only please some of the people some of the time, those who will never be pleased shouldn't be the ones raining on everyone elses parade...--Alan del Beccio 15:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC) :There have now been even more changes to the article that have little to do with the sidebar data. 23 in total over a week and a half. The question isn't whether a parade is rained on, but simply if the article is stable. That is one of the criteria for featured status. The article is not yet stable; when the size issue is resolved or moved to background and the other editorial changes settle down such that there aren't nearly daily modifications to the article, then I think it would be a good featured article. I do like it; I do think it well done; but let's wait until it stops changing so much. Aholland 06:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC) *'Support'. Looks great. Very clean, very detailed. --Werideatdusk 05:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC) *'Support'. It seems to have stabilized. The size has been moved to the background, and the sidebar cleaned up. There was some short debate yesterday about phasers (caused by my own over zealousness), but that ended quickly in favor of the contents of the article. --OuroborosCobra 06:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC) *'Support' this should be featured now, the objections have been taken care of. Alan and Aholland do great work together, it's too bad you guys spend so much time trying to get under each others skin. Jaf 16:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Jaf **''Featured.'' 5 supports, and 1 potential (unclear) oppose. - AJ Halliwell 18:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC) K'tinga is not necessarily a match for Excelsior Regarding this statement for preservation purposes:: "The K't'inga-class cruiser was one of the most advanced and versatile warships in the Klingon Imperial Fleet, more than capable of facing the Excelsior in a one vs one situation. ( )" There is no evidence that the K'tinga was a match for an Exclesior class in the movie era. In that scene Kang's ship merely catches the Excelsior in the nebula while other Klingon ships are enroute. It is more likely that Sulu simply did not want to risk starting a battle that would end in bloodshed. It was not until three Klingon cruisers catch up that the Exclesior starts to have a real problem. Furthermore, the Excelsior is one of Starfleet's newest and most advanced ships, whereas the K'tinga (as we know it) is a design that is at least about 20 years old at the time. The Ktinga as a match for the exclesior is speculation without any real basis, and should be edited or removed. -- 01:38, January 23, 2012 (UTC)Gugeyewalker :First, if you intend to use a particular username, please register it. Otherwise, simply sign with your IP address. Relating to this topic, the comment did not state that it was a "match" for an Excelsior class, it stated that it was "more than capable" of facing one. Two different things. --31dot 03:48, January 23, 2012 (UTC) Escorting the Excelsior out of Klingon space, no matter how powerful the K'tinga is, does not mean that it is capable of 'facing the K'tinga in battle'. If you want this to have weight I propose that a less vague statement is composed...as the implication is that it faces the Excelsior in battle, and anyone who has not seen that episode recently might think that was the implication (just as I re-watched the episode just to verify this). One K'tinga never takes on the Excelsior. The implication of the statement is inaccurate. With a statement like this 'any ship' is capable of 'facing' any other in one-one situation. --Gug 01:36, January 29, 2012 (UTC) :The statement did not say the claim was based on an actual battle. It was based on capabilities. There doesn't need to be an actual battle in order to know a ship can stand off against another.--31dot 02:09, January 29, 2012 (UTC) I propose something like this: "The K't'inga-class cruiser was one of the most advanced and versatile warships in the Klingon Imperial Fleet, capable of threatening the Excelsior in a stand-off situation and overwhelming the Excelsior in small numbers." I can't remember how many ships were involved in that battle, but i think there were three. The actual number can be referenced as well if you like. --Gug 02:41, January 29, 2012 (UTC) :That's good as a compromise, I guess. I don't think the exact number is necessary.--31dot 02:44, January 29, 2012 (UTC) "Unification I"? I can't find this craft anywhere in . Can someone tell me where it appears in that episode, please? --Defiant (talk) 16:15, April 1, 2018 (UTC) :http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/File:Ktinga_at_Qualor_II.jpg Kennelly (talk) 16:23, April 1, 2018 (UTC) That's great. Thank you --Defiant (talk) 16:42, April 1, 2018 (UTC)